JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Appellants had filed this appeal against judgment and order dated September 14, 1996, vide which they were convicted for commission of an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short Indian Penal Code) and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of none months. It was also ordered that out of fine, after realization, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- would be paid to the injured Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi after the expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal/revision etc. 2. After judgment was reserved in this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants brought it to the notice of the Court that appellants No. 3 Nishan Singh had died on July 10, 2000 in a road accident. Since none of his near relations had moved any application to continue with this appeal, as such appeal qua him stands abated. 3. All the three appellants-accused were put to trial for commission of an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. FIR was recorded at the instance of one Gurmeet Singh, who had stated that on August 20, 1991, at 1.45 PM, when he along with Sukhdeep Singh came back after meeting his friend Jai Singh, who resided in Harsh Bhawan Hostel in Kurukshetra University, and had reached near the market of the University, Randhir Nehra, appellant No. 1, along with two clean shaven boys was seen standing in front of the market at T point. They were armed with swords. In the meantime, Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi, who was student of M.A. (History) and was residing in Arjun Bhawan hostel, came from the side of the hostel on a motor-cycle. He was stopped by Randhir Nehra and his two companions. Jaswinder left his motor-cycle and started running. He was immediately surrounded by Randhir Nehra and his co- accused. Randhir Nehra inflicted sword blow, which hit on the right arm of Jaswinder Singh. One companion of Randhir Nehra, who was lengthy in height, inflicted sword blow on the left arm of Jaswinder Singh. The other companion of Randhir Nehra inflicted sword blow twice on the legs of Jaswinder Singh. Randhir Nehra inflicted sword blow, which hit on the right arm of Jaswinder Singh. One companion of Randhir Nehra, who was lengthy in height, inflicted sword blow on the left arm of Jaswinder Singh. The other companion of Randhir Nehra inflicted sword blow twice on the legs of Jaswinder Singh. Randhir Nehra again inflicted a sword blow, which hit on the fingers of left hand of Jaswinder Singh. Jaswinder Singh then raised alarm, whereupon Gurmeet Singh, complainant, along with Sukhdeep Singh reached at the spot, on seeing them all the three appellants ran away along with their respective weapons by riding motor-cycle. Jaswinder Singh was shifted to the hospital by Abhay Punia. Motive to cause injuries was stated to be group rivalry amongst the students. 4. It is apparent from the records that after recording statement of Gurmeet Singh, formal FIR was registered and subsequent thereto, statement of Sukhdeep Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day, wherein he specifically named the two assailants as Darshan Singh and Nishan Singh, appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively. Jaswinder Singh injured was not found fit to make statement. On medical advice, he was shifted to P.G.I. at Chandigarh, where his statement was recorded on August 22, 1991. He also specifically named all the three appellants as the assailants. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the Court for trial. On completion of commitment proceedings, trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge at Kurukshetra. 5. Trial court charged all the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In defence photostat copy of judgment dated July 27, 1993, (Mark A) was placed on record. 6. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, as led by the parties, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that any of the injuries caused was dangerous to life and accordingly did not hold the appellants- accused guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They were, however found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They were, however found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. They were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. Shri Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently assailed the judgment and order passed by the trial court on the ground that appellants No. 2 and 3 were not named in the first information report, as such, their conviction was not justified. He has argued that Gurmeet Singh (PW9) was an interested witness and his testimony should have been discarded. He further argued that since alleged recovery of weapons, at the instance of appellants, was not made in the presence of any independent witness, this evidence could not have been used against them. Counsel contended that since there existed discrepancies in the statements of the doctors, who had examined the injured at different times, the story of the prosecution was required to be discarded. 8. In the alternative, he prayed that all the appellants were young at the time of occurrence, at the threshold of their career and may be without understanding the gravity of their act, they might have committed that offence. Now they are grown up individuals residing separately with their families and they deserved a chance to rehabilitate themselves in life. Counsel further pleaded that in case they were sent behind the bars at this stage, not only they, their entire family would suffer. Counsel further submitted that the appellants had already remained behinds the bars for some period. He prayed that leniency be shown to them and they be enlarged on probation. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kailash Prasad Kanodia and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 106, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Nasib Singh, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 304. 9. Shri Sanjeev Sheokand, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, had vehemently controverted the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants. He, by referring to the statement of injured Jaswinder Singh and eye witnesses, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Sukhdeep Singh and also to the testimony of doctors, argued that the guilt of the appellants was proved on record. He, by referring to the statement of injured Jaswinder Singh and eye witnesses, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Sukhdeep Singh and also to the testimony of doctors, argued that the guilt of the appellants was proved on record. He further argued that trial Court had already shown leniency to them by awarding lesser punishment, as such, no further concession be given to them. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. Record has been perused with the assistance rendered by counsel for the parties. In this case, eye witness account has been given by Jaswinder Singh injured while appearing in the witness-box as PW10, by Gurmeet Singh (PW9) and Sukhdeep Singh (PW11), the eye witnesses. All the three witnesses named above had categorically stated the role played by the appellants-accused at the time of alleged occurrence. Despite length cross-examination, defence had failed to shatter credibility of the witnesses. No doubt, Gurmeet Singh (PW9) had not mentioned the names of appellants No. 2 and 3 at the time of making statement on August 20, 1991, however, names of these two assailants/appellants were specifically mentioned by Sukhdeep Singh (PW11), whose statement was recorded at the spot, and also by the injured when his statement was recorded in P.G.I. Chandigarh, on August 22, 1991. 11. Even if for the sake of arguments, statement of Gurmeet Singh is excluded from consideration, even then appellants would not get any benefit. There existed sufficient evidence against them, on the basis of which their conviction and sentence could be sustained. On August 28, 1991, Jaswinder Singh (PW10) was medico-legally examined by Dr. Atual Arora (PW1), L.N.J.P. Hospital at Kurukshetra, who had found following injuries on his person :- "1. Profusely bleeding wound on right arm, right hand, exact details of wound not noted and wound was bandaged. Details of wound to be given by Orthopaedic Surgeon when he opens the bandage. Advised x-ray right arm A.P. view, lateral view. Advised Orthopaedic opinion. 2. Incised wound on front of left leg 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. muscles, bone exposed. Advised X-ray left leg. 3. Incised wound in front of right leg 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. Bone visible and seems to be cut. Advised X-ray left leg. A.P. lateral view. Wound bleeding. 4. Terminal phalange of left middle finger is cut as a separate piece. Advised X-ray. 5. Advised X-ray left leg. 3. Incised wound in front of right leg 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. Bone visible and seems to be cut. Advised X-ray left leg. A.P. lateral view. Wound bleeding. 4. Terminal phalange of left middle finger is cut as a separate piece. Advised X-ray. 5. Incised wound on left right finger 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. bleeding. 6. Incised wound on dorsal aspect of left arm 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. deep. Advised x-ray left arm. 12. Thereafter, keeping in view his serious condition, injured Jaswinder was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he was medico-legally examined on August 20, 1991, at 7.30 PM. PW13-A Dr. Jaswant Rai had given following detail regarding injuries, which were found on the person of Jaswinder Singh : "1. Right upper limb, 3 inch x 2 inch lacerated injury over the posterior surface of the right fore-arm, close to the elbow with fracture both bones of the fore-arm with muscles and tendons expose. Radial plus was palpable. 2. 3 inches x 2 inches lacerated wound over the ulnear border of the left mid fore-arm. Lacerated wound over the distal part of the left hand. No vascular injury. 3. Right lower limb : 2 inches cut injury over the lower part of the anterior surface of the right leg with bone exposed with cut mark on the bone. No crepitus (ratting of bone) and no abnormal mobility. The distal vessels were palpable. 4. Left lower limb : 3 inches x 2 inches lacerated injury over the anterior surface on the lower part of the left leg with bone exposed and with cut marks over the bone. No abnormal mobility. No distal neurovascular deficit. 1 cm wound over the left knee cap with the underlying knee cap broken." 13. PW11-A Dr. Lalit Kaushal had also stated about the injuries as mentioned above. Merely because PW1 Dr. Atual Arora had shown the nature of injuries as incised wounds and Dr. Jaswant Rai (PW13-A) had shown the same as lacerated injuries, no benefit, as claimed by the appellants, could be extended to them. At the time of initial examination, wounds were dressed and bandage was applied thereon. Since medical examination was conducted at PGI after some time, injuries might look like lacerated injuries due to the intervening facts and time which had taken place after first examination. At the time of initial examination, wounds were dressed and bandage was applied thereon. Since medical examination was conducted at PGI after some time, injuries might look like lacerated injuries due to the intervening facts and time which had taken place after first examination. Accordingly, this Court feels that the prosecution had successfully proved that injuries were caused by the appellants to injured Jaswinder Singh. 14. Argument of Shri Mahabir Sandhu, Advocate, that since recovery of weapons of offence was not made in the presence of independent witnesses, the factum of recovery could not be used against them is also devoid of any force. Record shows that the recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses. However, those witnesses were not examined on the ground of having been won over by the opposite party. Statement of Investigating Officer regarding recovery was corroborated by PW6 Ashok Kumar, Head Constable, who had categorically stated that the swords were recovered at the instance of the appellants from underneath the bushes. It is also apparent from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that all the swords were found stained with blood. All this clearly established that the weapons/swords were recovered at the instance of the appellants. 15. Counsel for the appellants has referred to certain discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which this Court feels, were minor and had rightly been ignored by the trial Court. 16. In view of reasoning given above, conviction of the appellants No. 1 and 2 under Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code is upheld. 17. Prayer of counsel for the appellants that the appellants No. 1 and 2 be released on probation and his reliance on the judgments in Kailash Prasad Kanodias case and Nasib Singhs case (supra) in that regard is not justified. Above mentioned judgments were passed keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, in which charges were not serious. This Court feels, as has also been argued by counsel for the appellants, that appellants were young students at the time of alleged occurrence and might be due to their young age, they were not in a position to understand the gravity of their act. It is also apparent from the records that fight was the result of group rivalry amongst the students. It is also apparent from the records that fight was the result of group rivalry amongst the students. It is a case where reformative approach is required to be adopted by this Court. If at this stage, they are sent behinds the bars, not only they but their children and family would also suffer. 18. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 , observed as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." 19. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986(1) Supreme Court 372 , wherein, by taking lenient view of the circumstances in that case, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986(1) Supreme Court 372 , wherein, by taking lenient view of the circumstances in that case, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine was enhanced and ordered to be paid by way of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. 20. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 21. To the same effect is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600 and Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 467. 22. In this case, appellants No. 1 and 2 were students of young age at the time of alleged occurrence. As per information supplied by their counsel, now they are residing with their families like disciplined citizens and they are the only bread winners of their families. Counsel further stated that both of them had remained behind the bars during trial for about 4-1/2 months. The appeal is pending since 1996. A lurking fear might have remained in the mind of the appellants that on one day or the other they would be sent behind the bars (sic). Since 1996, their appeal is pending in this Court. During this period, appellants No. 1 and 2 might have suffered financially also. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that they deserved a lenient and reformative treatment. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, keeping in view gravity of injuries caused, punishment of fine is enhanced and appellants No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay a find of Rs. 10,000/- each over and above the amount of fine already deposited by them. It is further directed that the amount be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, their appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 10,000/- each over and above the amount of fine already deposited by them. It is further directed that the amount be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, their appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit being so made, trial Court will issue a notice to injured-complainant Jaswinder Singh and disburse that amount to him forthwith. With above mentioned modification, appeal qua appellants No. 1 and 2 stands disposed of. Order accordingly.